W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

RE: The problem with nested rulesets (aka groups)

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:56:23 -0700
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0503EF3DF1@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

> On Behalf Of Gary Hallmark
> 
> is that people will reasonably expect that they serve some more useful
> purpose than merely a device to put a comment on a collection of
rules.
[PV>] +1 / I agree
> For example, at least one real product (Haley) supports nested
rulesets
> (groups) and allows one to attach a condition to the group, with the
> semantics that the condition is ANDed with the condition of each of
the
> group members.  This is useful because often a group of rules will all
> be about the same frames or relations and you don't have to repeat
that
> in each group member. In PRD, one might also reasonably expect to
attach
> a priority or mutual exclusion constraint to the group.
[PV>] Normally, that would be called a template. I'm not sure there are
enough Haley BRE users to justify a RIF feature (and if I recall,
Ruleburst/Haley are not even members of RIF...).
> 
> If the sole purpose of groups in RIF is to avoid repeating a comment,
> surely we can do that by putting the comment at the document
(non-nested
> ruleset) level, giving it an IRI or id, and then referring to it from
> several rules.
[PV>] +1 / I agree
Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 19:57:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT